Brian Diaz wrote:
"Mediocre" and "exceptional" are subjective terms.

Very.

Brian Diaz wrote:
"Mediocre" and "exceptional" are subjective terms.

unless "exceptional" is taken literally, in which case it simply means "exempt from that which is in all other circumstances applicable."  it could be taken as, "under special circumstances," and have nothing at all to do with the ability of the photographer in question.

Tony Culture Photoz wrote:
Her profile says :

Hi, thanks for viewing my page. I'm interested in "PAID SHOOTS" and TFP/TFCD with exceptional photographers only!

I know I am nowhere near being the best photographer around, but shit, you ain't nowhere near being the best model either.

I know, you look hot in that mini skirt, thong, lingerie shorts (I hate to say "boy shorts"), and nude suit you were born with though.

I mean, you have some nice images taken of those photographers who do very good work, yeah, the ones who didn't have to pay to shoot you. The ones you would have paid, if your ass didn't look so damn good. *hmmm*

Does that mean that most of you photographers (who will attempt to belittle me with your snyde comments) don't have to pay a model like this ?

I am not directing this to any particular model. Just something some aspiring models have on their pages.

Pretty standard for most models who have been in the game for more than a few weeks
Most models will cherish a great photo more than a small amt of money ,( I have seen newbie models literally breakdown in tears when they see that first great photo of themselves . A great photograph validats their beauty and their right to be in the fashion scene ) If a photographer cannot produce that great photo for a model then generally the currency is $.. ie the models time for the photograpraphers $,,,However once you work with an get to know a model then other forms of "currency "can be brought into play ie dinners , pieces  jewlery or clothing or even ( if you are able ) do something really special for your fave /dependable /loyal models....
I have several such young women in my life ..Last year I decided to surprise two of them in a totally unforgetable  way .I knew they were both friends of Damian "Jr Gong "Marley - so through a World Music TV producer friend of mine ( who interviewed Damian ) I arranged for both girls to meet Damian and attend his concert ,,Nearly one year later they are still talking about that incredible nite .....Priceless ...( and I will be doing TFP with them for years to come  if I chose )

Garry k wrote:

Pretty standard for most models who have been in the game for more than a few weeks

Indeed!!! Weeks exactly...

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Here I go again....
Most models have no ideal what good or great is.  Most haven't taken ONE
art or photo class and many also have no clue what works for their look
or market.  I base this on all those who have those wonderfull fashion images
and stand all of 5'2".

Squeaky wheels get the grease.  I disagree that most models are clueless.  The clueless ones just tend to be the most vocal because they run into the most problems.  The rest of us just quietly go about the business of making pictures and working in the market/niche that suits us.

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Here I go again....
Most models have no ideal what good or great is.

That I would agree.

Shyly wrote:
Squeaky wheels get the grease.  I disagree that most models are clueless....
The rest of us just quietly go about the business of making pictures and working in the market/niche that suits us.

SO that's why there are so many great models books on here! No, it's not the squeak that's the problem. It the number of squeaks! How about the silent models that haven't updated or check their profile and messages? There are successful ones, there are also successful art/alternate ones. But not the majority.

I like the idea of being slightly under average - there's less pressure. Besides, by definition "average" is where the most people are. The other way to look at it is the 50 percentile in standardized tests - it means 1/2 the people are better than you and 1/2 are worse.

Translation:

Exceptional photographer = NOT YOU

Alternate translation:

Exceptional photographer  = NOT ME

Doug Swinskey wrote:
what bothers me is the new models that tag a crappy photographers page with "awesome or great work"...and leave the same tag on my page...

Doug I could not agree more. I don't have a lot of tags on here but I have that happen when people see my book then I see them on someone else's crappy webpage. I wonder to myself if you don't like their work why did you shoot with them in the 1st place?

Garry k wrote:
Pretty standard for most models who have been in the game for more than a few weeks
Most models will cherish a great photo more than a small amt of money ,( I have seen newbie models literally breakdown in tears when they see that first great photo of themselves . A great photograph validats their beauty and their right to be in the fashion scene ) If a photographer cannot produce that great photo for a model then generally the currency is $.. ie the models time for the photograpraphers $,,,However once you work with an get to know a model then other forms of "currency "can be brought into play ie dinners , pieces  jewlery or clothing or even ( if you are able ) do something really special for your fave /dependable /loyal models....
I have several such young women in my life ..Last year I decided to surprise two of them in a totally unforgetable  way .I knew they were both friends of Damian "Jr Gong "Marley - so through a World Music TV producer friend of mine ( who interviewed Damian ) I arranged for both girls to meet Damian and attend his concert ,,Nearly one year later they are still talking about that incredible nite .....Priceless ...( and I will be doing TFP with them for years to come  if I chose )

Oh great models want $$$, prints, Cd's, DVD's and now add concerts, jewlery, dinners. LOL

Shyly wrote:
I disagree that most models are clueless.  The clueless ones just tend to be the most vocal because they run into the most problems.  The rest of us just quietly go about the business of making pictures and working in the market/niche that suits us.

It's very rare for me to disagree with Shyly, but in this case I do.

I've seen thousands of portfolios from wannabe (there's that word again) models.  Many thousands.  All of them in books, many of them expensive.  Most of them thought the pictures they had were "exceptional" - and they were, in fact, the best pictures that had ever been taken of them. 

Most of the pictures sucked.  Of those that didn't suck, most were inappropriate to market that model.  It's a fact of life when dealing with models who want to be in the industry, aren't yet, and don't have anyone to guide them on what works and what doesn't.

Tony's right in this case.

On the 'net, how many models have raved about the amazing photographers they have worked with, and when you look at their portfolios they have a bunch of wronkled up bed sheet photos, or other miserable excuses for "photography"?

People don't know until they educate themselves to know - and few models do that, at least at the beginnings of their careers.

Tony Culture Photoz wrote:
Her profile says :

with exceptional photographers only!

Tony Lawrence wrote:
Here I go again.... Most models have no ideal what good or great is.  Most haven't taken ONE art or photo class and many also have no clue what works for their look or market. I base this on all those who have those wonderfull fashion images and stand all of 5'2".

Go right ahead and rant, Tony... and I will add, or do they have a friggen clue what works for the photographer's market or potential client base either.

What that says to me is the the model sets them self up as a friggen "pretend" art critic, when they make a statement like that.

PASS!!!!

Studio36

TXPhotog wrote:
It's very rare for me to disagree with Shyly, but in this case I do.

I've seen thousands of portfolios from wannabe (there's that word again) models.  Many thousands.  All of them in books, many of them expensive.  Most of them thought the pictures they had were "exceptional" - and they were, in fact, the best pictures that had ever been taken of them. 

Most of the pictures sucked.  Of those that didn't suck, most were inappropriate to market that model.  It's a fact of life when dealing with models who want to be in the industry, aren't yet, and don't have anyone to guide them on what works and what doesn't.

Tony's right in this case.

On the 'net, how many models have raved about the amazing photographers they have worked with, and when you look at their portfolios they have a bunch of wronkled up bed sheet photos, or other miserable excuses for "photography"?

People don't know until they educate themselves to know - and few models do that, at least at the beginnings of their careers.

Hmmm....

Given that you have fourteen trillion times more experience than I do, I'll defer to you on this.  Perhaps my experience is different because most of the models I know and interact with are art models, who tend to be a separate breed.  I was just looking over the list of art models I made in a separate thread last night, and without exception they're a clever, discerning bunch.  I suppose that tends to influence how I react to generalizations about dumb models, since in my personal experience they're nothing of the sort.

Shyly wrote:
Everyone is selective about whom they will work with collaboratively.  Some are just more obvious about that than others.  Good portfolios don't happen by accident.  They happen because the model learns enough about photography to recognize a good photographer when she sees one, and because she learns enough about how to market herself to catch the interest of those good photographers.

We don't all put that statement in bold on our profiles, but it's true for everyone.  Just like it's true for all photographers.  I don't think it's anything worth taking personally.

Yea, and sometimes the models are even males.

gasp.

Shyly wrote:
I suppose that tends to influence how I react to generalizations about dumb models, since in my personal experience they're nothing of the sort.

No allusions to models being "dumb," [as in stupid,] Shyly, but rather to almost all of them, especially the ones with two weeks in the "business," being totally unqualified, by any means, to be making judgements like that in respect to the photographers. That is the irritation and it is that that provokes the response you see here.

Studio36

Shyly wrote:
Perhaps my experience is different because most of the models I know and interact with are art models, who tend to be a separate breed.

Since we are trying to be precise here, I'd take it a step further.  When you use the term "art model" you mean something very different from the Internet model who poses for "art pictures" for Internet photographers who call what they do "art".  I am flabbergasted at the people who say their work is "art" - and even more so at the people who seem to agree.

You have compiled a wonderful body of excellent work - but you did it by being very selective about who you worked with.  You have educated yourself to understand "exceptional".  I don't doubt that the other models around you have done something similar, and I could name quite a few MM members who have also.  But that is far, far from the norm.

studio L wrote:
Yea, and sometimes the models are even males.

gasp.

Nowwaitadangminnit. 

Everyone knows good and well that the term "model" refers exclusively to a woman somewhere in or close to her 20s.  By implying otherwise you are simultaneously spreading misinformation and exposing yourself as a sexist pig. 

You should be ashamed...

TXPhotog wrote:

Since we are trying to be precise here, I'd take it a step further.  When you use the term "art model" you mean something very different from the Internet model who poses for "art pictures" for Internet photographers who call what they do "art".  I am flabbergasted at the people who say their work is "art" - and even more so at the people who seem to agree.

You have compiled a wonderful body of excellent work - but you did it by being very selective about who you worked with.  You have educated yourself to understand "exceptional".  I don't doubt that the other models around you have done something similar, and I could name quite a few MM members who have also.  But that is far, far from the norm.

Such blatant snobbery and arrogance.

The "we" here is uh, whom precisely?

Quick-someone call the "art police" before the sky falls.

Sheesh.

"Art" is as subjective an item as there is...accordingly it cannot be objectively defined or measured, for what constitutes it is purely the opinion of the opiner.

Get over your "flabbergasted" self already. It isn't about you afterall.

Personally-I am thankful for every model and photographer ("internet" or otherwise), deemed talented or talentless by you or anyone else who has the simple human interest and desire to attempt to express themselves...especially in a manner they see as "artistic".

The world could do far worse...and does every day.

Garry k wrote:
Pretty standard for most models who have been in the game for more than a few weeks

Hey Dubayah Gee, what are you worried about. It only takes a couple of weeks. See, I told you.

And all you people looking for tfp that get turned down by the fashionistas that are so popular they can't do anything but pay jobs for Elle and Vogue, call me, I'm always looking for new faces.

studio L wrote:
"Art" is as subjective an item as there is...accordingly it cannot be objectively defined or measured, for what constitutes it is purely the opinion of the opiner.

And, of course, in your mind all opinions, however uninformed, are created equal.  That's why we have so much trash labeled as "art" because the word has power.

Go take a look at the portfolios on the thread Shyly started.  All the ones of the real art models on MM, and of the photographers they have worked with.  Then compare it to some of the out and out garbage that not even the photographer thinks is real art that abounds on these sites. 

I understand you may not be able to tell the difference.  That's too bad.  It does not mean that there isn't a difference, and that there isn't a distinction between "art" and "not art".

A bright red line?  No, of course not.  But one is hardly needed, given the large amount of obvious non-"art" that is around.

TXPhotog wrote:
I understand you may not be able to tell the difference.  That's too bad.  It does not mean that there isn't a difference, and that there isn't a distinction between "art" and "not art".

Ink jet = non-art

Giclee = art

Hell, Giclee isn't ONLY "art" if you listen to the art industry it's "fine art"

ROTFLMAO

Studio36

TXPhotog wrote:

And, of course, in your mind all opinions, however uninformed, are created equal.  That's why we have so much trash labeled as "art" because the word has power.

Go take a look at the portfolios on the thread Shyly started.  All the ones of the real art models on MM, and of the photographers they have worked with.  Then compare it to some of the out and out garbage that not even the photographer thinks is real art that abounds on these sites. 

I understand you may not be able to tell the difference.  That's too bad.  It does not mean that there isn't a difference, and that there isn't a distinction between "art" and "not art".

A bright red line?  No, of course not.  But one is hardly needed, given the large amount of obvious non-"art" that is around.

I have no trouble at all understanding to which you refer...for rocket science it surely isn't.

No matter how you important you choose to paint it.

My point is simply that the faint red line you allude to, is yours, and yours alone dear sir. That you might find others who share an appreciation for said line, is nice. Most everyone loves their chosen company.

And thank the heavens for that. All of it.

Bob Randall Photography wrote:

Hey Dubayah Gee, what are you worried about. It only takes a couple of weeks. See, I told you.

And all you people looking for tfp that get turned down by the fashionistas that are so popular they can't do anything but pay jobs for Elle and Vogue, call me, I'm always looking for new faces.

Long live sir bob, and all his brethren.

studio L wrote:
My point is simply that the faint red line you allude to, is yours, and yours alone

Well, it's not the first time you have been wrong.

Let me ask you a question:  Is there anything, anything at all, deliberately created by mankind that is "not art"?  I don't mean unintentional byproducts, but things actually created with the intent of creating them?  Can such things be "not art"?

Careful, it's a trick question.

TXPhotog wrote:

And, of course, in your mind all opinions, however uninformed, are created equal.  That's why we have so much trash labeled as "art" because the word has power.

Go take a look at the portfolios on the thread Shyly started.  All the ones of the real art models on MM, and of the photographers they have worked with.  Then compare it to some of the out and out garbage that not even the photographer thinks is real art that abounds on these sites. 

I understand you may not be able to tell the difference.  That's too bad.  It does not mean that there isn't a difference, and that there isn't a distinction between "art" and "not art".

A bright red line?  No, of course not.  But one is hardly needed, given the large amount of obvious non-"art" that is around.

Can't believe you are really trying to get into an "artistic" discussion on the net... you must enjoy fighting...

TXPhotog wrote:

Well, it's not the first time you have been wrong.

Let me ask you a question:  Is there anything, anything at all, deliberately created by mankind that is "not art"?  I don't mean unintentional byproducts, but things actually created with the intent of creating them?  Can such things be "not art"?

Careful, it's a trick question.

***

Ah, so focused on the black and white...the wrongs and rights you are. It's all just 1's and zeros in your world isn't it?

Yes kind sir, it is surely not the first time you define me (or others) as simply "wrong" because our opinions differ from yours; and I would surmise that it shan't be the last either.

In answer to your "trick" question-I am not aware of "mankind" ever having created anything in particular at all. Who is this "mankind", and just to be clear, are women a part of it? Careful, that might be a trick question too. Such fun!

To be precise-"art" to me, is but a word in the dictionary, and a concept in my mind.

I don't expect you, or anyone else to share my view of that concept.

But I do think it would be a constructive idea to share the dictionary definition, so that we may converse with consensually validated terminology.

Otherwise...we are apt to go round and round merely dancing with our verbal selves....which might pass the time pleasantly enough-but intellectual progression is ill served by such folly, no?. And what's the point in pretending otherwise me wonders?

Tony Culture Photoz wrote:
I am proud to have initiated this discussion in the forum. I was'nt turned down by any models lately. That isn't the reason I started this thread. I simply came upon a model's page, and that was written in her first paragraph. I was interested in knowing just how you, my peers, felt about such an attitudes. I have see how most of you feel about it now. However, I have been turned down by models before. Some didn't turn me down, they did a much wiser thing - they told me their rates. *s*
Which is why I started looking at models through my "D2BP" spectacles.

It wasn't anything that affected me personally. I just moved on other models. Funny thing about models, they are sooooo much in abundance nowadasy. I have found that models (people in general) who act like they are the shit usually are the shit and actualy get the same shit they gave to others. It's all karma, it's a people thing, not a model or photographer thing .

A couple of things to keep in mind when dealing with potential models... many of them are very young... and some are very attractive.  Keep that in mind... young and attractive... now add an environment like the internet (and its relative anonymous nature) and what type of responses do you think they get the majority of the time?

It might just be a reasonable response to an unreasonable environment.  Or it just might be the kind of responsive you would get from an attractive young lady used to getting young men to fall all over themselves to get her attention.

RStephenT wrote:
Can't believe you are really trying to get into an "artistic" discussion on the net... you must enjoy fighting...

Actually, that wasn't my intention at all.  However, what I intended got hijacked by someone who would rather throw rocks than engage in useful conversation.  And since the conversation with him isn't useful, I'm out of it.